YES WHO TOOK ALL THE PHOTOS OF CRACKY IN HER ROOM???

>>2

But, then... who was phone?

how does this relate to Camel and black men

>>4
The black cock that has seduced this enchanting if far from entirely ethically immaculate young lady away from the antiseptic pristinity of the Interwebz into "the foul rag-and-bone shop" (to quote Philip B. Dick) of the real world is the source of Life, growing everywhere, undying and unconquerable.
There is no place in the universe where It cannot be, and all will be lost except for It, since it is only life's ornaments that die, yet not the phallic black source of life itself. It is my aim to vitalize, to conscientize everything around me. The closest I have to this Life-engendering Cock in my body - at least on every day except the second Saturday in every month - is my sexual dimension (which is, I regret to have to state, of considerably greater extension and magnitude than my own sexual dimensionS). Therefore I offer its abominations to the Cock which incarnates the sacred Lure. It's a poor but in the end, I think, just about adequate substitute for being able to offer anything - I mean, anything that she would be even distantly likely to accept - to the charming little creature who has BEEN lured, and indeed been far, far more than lured - by said sacred Lure.

>>5

+1

>>5

Cant any of you cretins anwser my questions?

>>7
Are you "Camel-and-Black-Cock" Guy, or the OP?

If you're the former, I'm sure everyone assumed, as I certainly did, that post no. 4 in this thread was just a part of your ongoing Dadaist skit and not only didn't really require an answer but indeed well nigh forbade one. (If that assumption is wrong and you're the "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy and you're SERIOUS, then the answer to this latest "Camel" question is, of course: "Nothing").

If you're the latter, then I'll draw on the immense treasurehouse of knowledge about Cracky and about contemporary digital technology that I am most likely alone on this board in possessing and say: There are, believe it or not, a whole range of devices these days that can be set to take photos automatically after the elapse of the short period of time needed by the subject of the photograph to take up his or her pose. It isn't 1865 any more, more's the pity.

>>8
We are quite content to ignore the "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy and all other shit posters, no need for a guard dog to bark incessantly at the door while pumping piss and shit out in the corridor.

>>9
Performing the duties of "guard dog" for a place which is already drowning in shit without any contribution in that line from me was never any part of my intention. I've responded to "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy a couple of times already not with any intention of "putting him in his place" but because his brief, repetitive, insistent, obsessed non sequiturs appear to me to be one of the rare examples of something like wit that one encounters these days in this "community".

The wit is a problematical Dadaistic "meta-wit", as I say, based on the bold and doubtful principle that "repetition is a form of change", and the chances are that "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy is just another of the narcissistic "prima ballerina" types who tend to provide the only semblance of humour that emerges on these boards, and who, constitutionally incapable of repartee, just circle sadly around on their own imaginary private stage, rehearsing over and over their particular patented "koan" and repeating inwardly to themselves the narcissistic mantra: "Look on my dry wit and irony, ye mighty, and despair".

But even a sad semblance of wit and humour is better than none at all - and besides, I heartily welcome any remark that - in ANY spirit, be it that of genuine affection and curiosity, or that of narcissism, or even that of partially misogynistic persecution - tends to draw attention away from the anaemic, self-disfiguring and generally rather distasteful girl-child whose nickname stands at the head of this board and rally and revive what scraps and tatters of healthy sexual instinct you people may have left by redirecting them toward a buxom, red-blooded, self-loving, life-loving (and ergo necessarily also nigger-loving)young woman like Camel.

>is just another of the narcissistic "prima ballerina" types who tend to provide the only semblance of humour that emerges on these boards, and who, constitutionally incapable of repartee, just circle sadly around on their own imaginary private stage, rehearsing over and over their particular patented "koan" and repeating inwardly to themselves the narcissistic mantra: "Look on my dry wit and irony, ye mighty, and despair"

If irony was explosive this statement would have annihilated the galaxy.

>>11
I really don't want to get into another flame-war but, really, there plainly IS a difference between what I suppose you're suggesting to be MY "narcissism" and the pseudo-Zen narcissism of the /b/board "koan"-merchants, with their "I'll just leave this here" and so on.
It's something I've noticed very frequently here and on CH. There's a certain type of "cool, ironical" poster who considers himself far, far TOO "cool and ironical" to ever allow himself to be drawn into DIALOGUE about whatever it is he's posted. His idea is just that he should be silently admired.
Whether I believe I should be admired or not, I think it's pretty obvious that what I expect and require from other people certainly isn't SILENCE. I think that that at least puts me in a better, more decent, more human class of egotists than a large number of the blasé, supercilious habitués of the Internet who visit boards like this one.

>>12
The only DIALOGUE you engage in is the same tired garbage you spout to defend an endless stream of self-aggrandizing filth designed, though always failing, to leave everyone with the impression that you are a tremendously learned individual of unequal intellect. But instead of being happy with that, as evidenced by your inability to acknowledge the merit of or walk away from any criticism, regardless how perfectly it hits its mark, you ask for more than to be silently admired: you so clearly hope that one of these days one of your supposed intellectual inferiors is going to say "Yes, Alex, you really are as amazing as you think you are." Of course, this never happens, as most everyone recognizes you for the pedantic, driveling idiot that you are, but this never causes you to miss a beat in your endless cycle of patting yourself on the back. Instead, you deny that you could possibly have the qualities of inflated self-worth and unjustified desire for deference that are generally called "narcissism," at which mention you are wont to apply your petulantly dismissive quotation marks. How on earth you can always find room to explain how you are somehow superior to the rest of us--either as an egoist, or an intellectual, or just as middle-aged human failure--and STILL be incapable of acknowledging that this behavior is either unusual, unjustified, or just plain wrong, is truly a masterful feat of blind stupidity. And for that, and nothing else, I must sincerely say "bravo."

>>13
Well, duh. /thread.

Also, tl; dr

>>13
Well, as I say, let's not have another boring flame-war.

But in any case, I don't think it really needs pointing out, polemically or otherwise, that your latest tirade of personal abuse just doesn't address the point I just made - which was not about whether I am an egotist or not, but just about whether I may be a different SORT of egotist from a lot of the people who post on here.

Of course, I really don't know if "Camel-and-Black-Cock" guy, for example, DOES fall into the category of "narcissistic pseudo-Zen koan merchants" that I just referred to. Maybe - despite the "minimalism" and the whole "meta-comical" rather than just vulgarly "comical" "repetition ad absurdum" thng he's got going there - he ISN'T someone who's motivated by sterile vanity and self-regard but rather someone who is motivated by much healthier and more humanly promising emotions, such as an inextricable mixture of love and hatred for the sweet, charming, pitiless, nigger-fucking teenage Helen of Troy in question.

Which of these is actually the case with him will be revealed by whether or not we ever see him actually post MORE than his "meta-comical koan" involving the tireless permutation of the eroto-semantemes "Camel", "black", "cock" and "cunt" (oh, and "ass", just in case you Americans are feeling left out of things).

But all I was saying was that I am demonstrably NOT a "self-aggrandizer" at least in THIS sublime and haughty "you-been-Asian-sage'd" style of self-aggrandizement.

I'm happy to "dialogue" - at least in the basic sense of "exchange words and arguments" - with anyone, as indeed I am exchanging words and arguments with you know.

You won't get that from the "I'll just leave this here" brigade, who are the REAL Interwebz "cocks-of-the-walk" and think themselves much too "tough" to even be "Internet tough guys".

That's all I'm saying.

in my opinion camel and black cock guy is a breath of fresh air inhaled into a lung full of truth in this forum of mostly crap.

is it not a legitimate question to ask how topics on here relate to Camel's decision to cross the boundary into dark genetalia?

>>16
I applaud every word of this post, albeit with somewhat less enthusiasm the ones that are mis-spelt.

The future of the Cracky community does indeed indubitably lie in an exodus into regions of discourse and discussion peripheral, but nonetheless obliquely related, to its concerns in the days when the memory of Cracky was still fresh and her return an imaginable possibility.

Plus, since my chances of ever getting to fuck Camel are even more vanishingly slim than the chances of Cracky coming back on the Internet, a discussion like the one proposed by the last poster might at least generate some piquant anatomical and circumstantial details that I can masturbate over through the sultry Central European nights.

>>15
On the contrary, the whole point was that you're a much worse one for your inability to admit fault and your constant expectation of a response that validates your belief in your abilities for superior discourse or logic. The rest of your post is just more of your tired, typical tl;dr avoidance and deflection of any criticism levied at you that you don't know how to contend with other than by going off on long rants about something completely unrelated to what you're responding to.

>>16

I agree, it's a legitimate question when you take into account Camel's worship of Olivia which typical involves taking on both the moral values and imitation of the idol's actions. The fact that Olivia wasn't fond of the darker skinned male and the undeniable preponderance the white race has over black leads me to wonder whether Camel's motive is perhaps exclusively not only rebelling against society, but rebelling against her love/worship for Cracky too? her (non-anonymous) absence from the 'scene' in synchronization with her negro boyfriend's arrival seems to add credence to this theory.

She's a mudblood darkie type herself, sticking to other inferiors. Nothing special going on.

Say whut?

>>19
I'm sure most of you have known Camel a lot longer, and understand her a lot better, than I have and do. In the three years I've been hanging around here I've mostly just stumbled again and again on testimonies to the fascination of the 15-year-old Camel, the 14-year-old Camel, the 13-year-old Camel - and, in her case, I'm not even inclined to condemn all that as pedophilia; I can well believe she's been something to make a grown man weep since the very onset of puberty, whether the grown man has been inclined to admit to that or not.

At seventeen going on eighteen, though, I think she can be considered according to the principles that generally apply to womanhood and, for all my decades of involvement with Culture, I would strongly urge against ascribing too much weight to it - I mean to such sociological factors as "rebelling against society" and psychological factors as "rebelling against her own identification with Olivia" - and not enough weight to Nature.

I feel strongly inclined, personally, to go along with a certain possible variation on the nutso Nation of Islam "recessive gene" theory: genuine human masculinity is barely present in the civilized and industrialized world of today EXCEPT in the form of the negro male. Really, there are three sexes: females; males (who are almost invariably black); and a class (which probably includes all of the non-female users of this board) of beings who are neither anatomically female nor properly male. Really, the "sexual relationship" "kath'auton" or "akribestaton" - to speak the language of Plato - is ALWAYS a relationship between a white woman and a black man. Everything else is perversion or periphery.

What would really be called for, then, is not an explanation of WHY Camel has become intensely involved with a black boyfriend, but rather an explanation of why any girl or woman would ever choose to do OTHERWISE.

Potentially and "by rights", all of the girls in the Cracky community could and should have gone in this direction. If some of them didn't, it was only because special circumstances applied: Dolores, I've gleaned from vague hints dropped here and there, suffered genuine trauma during childhood, to such a point that she's unlikely ever to become a woman at all and will probably remain all her life that insipid but comforting substitute for a woman, the "human being capable of a loving relationship with another person simply AS a person"; RavRav possibly has the "right stuff" in her to follow the path of Nature and become a nigger's bit, but she happens, God bless her, to be a fanatical and irreconcilable racist (possibly the two or three lynchings and burnings she was fortunate enough to witness during her Georgian childhood marked her with such searing exhilaration that the joy of racial hatred will override, for years or decades yet, the hunger of her Amazonian vagina for a penis "commensurate" - to speak the language of F. Scott Fitzgerald - "with its capacity for wonder.")

In Camel's case, however, no such special circumstances happened to obtain and - were she only to allow us to witness it - we would witness in her the terrible and beautiful spectacle of "Woman Following Her Nature and Her Destiny".

>>22
A pedo AND a nigger.

No.

Fucking.

Luck.

>>23
A moron AND unable to read.

Only.

To be.

Expected.

>>24

Read it and deduced you're a pedo nigger, more like.

>>22 We don't know if the specific negro is one of those that are "properly male", though.

>>22
When your interactions with the individual in question are limited to the non-physical realm of the internet, I believe it is important to turn the vice anti-clockwise and reverse the illusionary narrow-mindedness that two dimensional conversations bring.
Therefore I believe there are several possibilities Camel brought home a negro, here are three:
The males in her previous relationship have all been possessive, with her tastes yet to be solidified she didn’t realize what she subconsciously was craving for, which is a dominant male who won’t be discouraged from domination when exposed to her relentless belief in her own smug intellect, abilities and knowledge.
1) In an ironic way she appreciates the visual contrast of her skin to his. This stimulates electrodes of superiority in her racist subconscious mind, furthering her ego trip. What makes you feel brighter than being illuminated in a pitch black cavern?
2) With her past boyfriends/girlfriends all despising blacks as well as the Cracky community, she initially did to spite them, now she’s simply having difficulty (or perhaps being lethargic) finding a white male of equal penis girth/length.

>>1

I wish i had never started this thread now..

>>30
Don't worry, OP. There's no reason on earth why YOU should hold yourself responsible for the relatively interesting discussion that has gone on underneath your totally uninteresting post.

All that happened was: your question was so dumb and ignorant that, when people started mocking you for it, it provided a good opportunity for "Camel-And-Black-Cock" Guy to place one of his patented "non sequiturs" in an obviously dying thread, and the discussion took off from there.

So as I say, don't worry about it. No one is going to suspect you even for a moment, because of this, of not hating Alex Reynolds with all the force your feeble little mind and soul can muster. So you can carry on being just like everyone else and preserve that lovely warm tingly "belonging" feeling in your belly.

>>27

interesting post.

I respect camel and black cock guy for his persistance in posting constantly on here despite going un-noticed till now.

It's a boring shit thread and surprise, Alex is involved.

OP might just as well posted about anything, it wouldnt have gone any other way if Alex was to derive his daily amusement from it.

He's a chinese room of douchery. What an illiterate bumpkin.

>>31

Seriously, fuck off

>>31

And who the fuck is alex reynolds?

>>36

TARGET ACQUIRED.

PROFILE:
Mouthy 50-something who alienates anyone who makes spelling or grammatical mistakes, typos, anyone with an education deemed inferior to his own, and, more generally, anyone can't be arsed with his tl;dr posts. How do we recoognise these posts? He rubs in the fact that he is a professor (oooh!) who has read loads of books (oooh!), and is also a pedophile.
His verbose soliloquies impress one or two silly teen camwhores, but that's about it. No wonder Jeff took away his administrative powers for CH...

>>37
He's a dropout, not a professor. Why do you think he's so hellbent on compensating his lack of education with phoney erudition ?

>>37
I'm actually no more a professor than I am a pedophile (or the negro that someone, a few posts back, also solenmly assured everyone I must be).

But I'd say the abnormal paths followed by YOUR sexuality are a more interesting object of investigation.

This inasmuch as I'VE been doing my darnedest for several posts now to derail this thread into a discussion of a buxom, nubile 18-year old girl and her newfound predilection for black cock, whereas YOU seem to be intent on derailing it into a (photo-illustrated) discussion of the life and personality of a whiskery middle-aged man.

The desire to partake vicariously, and extremely obliquely and inauthentically, in the negrophile sexual ecstasies of a beautiful young girl whom one will never get to touch or even see face to face, by exchanging speculations about these ecstasies over the Internet with a bunch of equally lonely and sexually frustrated males is certainly a pathetic and despicable desire. (And my having indulged in it, by the way - just in case Camel herself was one of the "one or two silly teenage camwhores" you believe are the only people I've "impressed" - will, I'm sure, have completely wiped out any positive balance of "impressed-ness" I may, until now, have enjoyed with her).

But there are, I think, at least the smoking ruins of a once-normal, or at least once potentially normal, sexuality discoverable somewhere in the sad mess of such a desire.

YOUR "geriophilic / geriophobic" compulsion to drag the discussion constantly away from what some old guy thinks and says onto the topic of THE OLD GUY HIMSELF suggests to me a far deeper sexual problem, and an erotico-psychological constitution that is so far removed from normality that it isn't even the sad ruin of the latter.

>>39

lol

pull the monkies tail...
sit back, and watch.
PROFIT!!!
fuckin' sweet..

Hi. I'm >>37.

>This inasmuch as I'VE been doing my darnedest for several posts now to derail this thread into a discussion of a buxom, nubile 18-year old girl and her newfound predilection for black cock, whereas YOU seem to be intent on derailing it into a (photo-illustrated) discussion of the life and personality of a whiskery middle-aged man.

Waitafuckingminute, who derailed who here?

>YOUR "geriophilic / geriophobic" compulsion to drag the discussion constantly away from what some old guy thinks and says onto the topic of THE OLD GUY HIMSELF suggests to me a far deeper sexual problem, and an erotico-psychological constitution that is so far removed from normality that it isn't even the sad ruin of the latter.

No, your perception of the situation is wrong. >>36 asked a question. I answered it. UMAD?

>>41
No, I'm not particularly mad.

Your post is full of shit you've just made up about me, of course. But fortunately, the mountains of crazy random invented rubbish about Alex Reynolds that accumulate here and on CH tend to collapse under the weight of their own malevolence, which is so desperately inventive that it soon becomes self-contradictory. (I'm disgusting and despicable because I'm known to be a pedophile who is only interested in eight-year-old boys but of course I'm also even MORE disgusting and pathetic because I'm known to regularly pay five hundred dollars a month to a twenty-two-year-old camwhore, which is PARTICULARLY disgusting and pathetic because I'm a "dropout" and that represents twice as much as I could possibly earn in total every month, only it doesn't because I live in an ivory tower and don't know anything about the real world cos I'm a university professor blah blah blah with each random piece of pseudo-information contradicting the last one so that I don't even have to take the trouble to deny or disprove any of this shit; the next silly little liar who happens along will do it for me.

But I will repeat that what happened in this thread was pretty much what I just said happened. Nobody gave a shit about the original silly question. Then "Camel and Black Cock" guy did his thing. Then I thought it might be an idea to take him seriously for once and actually TALK about the "Camel and black cock" question. There was really no reason for my contributions on the topic to be treated as anything other than the contributions of another "Anonymous". But no, as always, my posts were immediately identified as "Alex Reynolds posts" - because they bore the marks of my "illiteracy" and "lack of education", I suppose - and, since that point, just about every post in this thread has been about ME, and what a fucker I am, and snore snore snore...

As I say, a bunch of lonely, sexually frustrated guys talking shit on the Internet about a voluptuous, charming 18-year-old girl is sad enough. But a bunch of lonely, sexually-frustrated guys talking shit on the Internet about a 52-year-old male translator?....The "sadness" of THAT hardly bears thinking about!

>>42

erm how the fuck was the original question 'silly'?

>>43
Your use of the phrase "the fuck" would seem to imply that you consider my suggesting that it might be to be another screamingly obvious instance of my behaving like a sadistic arrogant bully etc. etc.

Well, I'll say two things:

Firstly: if it wasn't a silly question, why has, in the space of 42 posts, nobody yet bothered to answer it?

Secondly: I was just taking my cue, in saying it was "silly", from what was implied by the sarcastic "duuuuh" non-answers given in posts 2 and 3. As I said above, I know next to nothing about Cracky OR about modern (2006 is "modern" to me) technology. But the sarcastic question "Who took all the photos of Cracky in her room?" seems to me to mean: "There didn't have to be anyone there taking the photos, dumbfuck. She/they just used a phone or a camera with an automatic timer and took them themselves, as Cracky did in much the greater part of her oeuvre."

Oh, and by the way, I just discovered that the conversatons that go on between me and people on these boards have been made into a MOVIE already (actually, quite some time ago):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy3EHf82ZJU&feature=related

>>44

Its funny watching you lot argue like rabid dogs

>i don't want to start a flame war

Stop lying you piece of shit, you love flamewars, you've stated as much.

Alex enjoys our company because he'd rather be rejected by people he despise than by the people he admires.

To avoid repeats of the latter, he lives the life of a recluse and to enjoy the former, he hangs out on boards he has no interest in, insults as many people as he can in broad strokes, derails countless threads into topics he's the only one to care about and then he can be comforted that all who reject him are quarter educated morons with no taste, intellect or culture.

The human race will not miss him, he'll make sure of that.

>>47
I really don't think terms like "war", or "reject", or whatever have any proper application here anyway. They imply that this wrangling with me is ABOUT something, i.e. about some issue that could possibly be DECIDED, and not just a bunch of psychotics and serious neurotics snarling and tugging over the only thing that can really act as a vent for feelings of aggression and frustration here because it is the only thing that has a name.

Take the question that was asked a few posts back in that "what the fuck" tone that conveyed implicit belief in the myth that the views I hold are always the weird, incomprehensible, perverse, wantonly sadistic views of a bullying psychopath.

I answered it - reasonably and adequately, I think, and in such a way as to demonstrate that there was nothing perverse or sadistic or "what the fuck" about thinking that the question at the head of this thread was a silly one - but no one has said, even perfunctorily: "Oh. I understand what you were saying now. Yeah, you've got a point there." The twitching, yelping, sniggering orgy of Alex-baiting is underway already and it has an absolutely irresistible and inescapable momentum of its own for you people. Discussing things, reasoning about things, deciding things is just no part of it - and the idea of "winning an argument" in such an atmosphere is absurd.

Of course, it's my fault, ultimately, for deciding to come to boards like this and CH (though the latter barely exists any more, having become just a moribund photo-dump for kids and creepy pedophiles, a state this board is, as yet, only about halfway to attaining.) The sole valid question that will ALWAYS be put to me here is: "You don't WANT to be the target of the sad, neurotic spite of a bunch of utterly sterile, deeply unhappy people? Then fucking LEAVE, because that is ALL we have to offer to anyone."

>>48
Yep, we are all combative, sniggering psychotics except for you. What a fascinating anomaly of statistics it is that, no matter where you go to malign those around you--accusing everyone of being "prima ballerinas," morons, vain narcissists, quarter-educated teenagers, and bullies--still you always manage to be "on a higher level than the rest of [us], morally, intellectually, and on almost every other level possible," to paraphrase one of your own humble declarations. And of course, to contradict any such wise and kind statements is indeed an instance of our inability to resist "baiting" you, as the truth of your superiority should be obvious to all.

Yep, yep, clearly it is everyone but you that is "a bunch of psychotics and serious neurotics snarling and tugging over the only thing that can really act as a vent for feelings of aggression and frustration here," and I humbly apologize for making you "the target of the sad, neurotic spite of a bunch of utterly sterile, deeply unhappy people."

Sometimes I wonder if it's a computer screen you sit in front of, or a mirror.

>>48
The specifics of any thread dont matter when it is nothing but a repeat of so many threads just like it, you are here to convince yourself that ALL who reject you are utterly sterile, deeply unhappy people to the point of obfuscating the reality of your own utterly sterile and deeply unhappy life.

Look, at which point after giving us so many unwanted details of your life, views and behavior do you think we have enough to see what you're actually doing rather than what you say you are doing?

>>48
A question you never answered to anybody's -indeed, not even your's- satisfaction...

so the only valid questions are why is Alex here, and why doesnt he leave

I think the answer to both is that he has not finished using all combinations of adjectives derogatory to Crackyfags he can cram in a sentence when stating what the only valid questions are

>>48

Do we care? no we dont

>I'VE been doing my darnedest for several posts now to derail this thread into a discussion of a buxom, nubile 18-year old girl

Shoulda posted some fuckin' pics of her then, instead of waxing dithyrambic about black guys' dicks. No wonder you got called a pedo faggot... you pedo faggot.

This thread is terrible. 1 out of 5 stars. Try harder next time, you guys.

Everybody is a critic.

>>52

>why is Alex here, and why doesnt he leave

Having some years experience at running websites -though not .71 for that matter-, the only answer to such a question is: Because the admin didn't ban him, when he should have done it time ago.

Seriously, you might want to have the most open and horizontal place, yet if you don't want your place to rot and die you have to ban the retards who make the interesting users leave.

I like Alex. He is nice.

>>58
Look at this quarter-educated fucker now with his three-monosyllable, kindergarten-friendly sentences.

Too exhausted from the massive effort of shaking off your /b/board indoctrination and remembering how to spell "like" correctly, were you, to muster the additional mental energy required to draw on the capacity of the English language to actually FORM CLAUSES, you tongue-tied son of a bastard's ghost?

>>58

I'd say that too...for $500pcm.

>>60

I very much doubt that that was her. Our erotic communion with one another has long since deepened beyond the point where she would ever defend or compliment me, or indeed speak to or about me at all - meeting, touching, fucking etc. being SO far out of the question that to even mention the possibility is - to use a term that will certainly be recognized and welcomed on this board - "blasphemous".

We are "the world's last romantic couple" and stand in the same relation to other romantic couples as did, to other imperial horse-purchasers, the imperial horse-purchaser described in the old Chinese parable with which J.D. Salinger opens the first of his Glass Family stories "Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenters":

"You are now advanced in years, said Duke Mu of Chin to Po Lo. Is there any member of your family whom I could employ to look for horses in your stead?" Po Lo replied: "A good horse can be picked out by its general build and appearance. But the superlative horse — one that raises no dust and leaves no tracks — is something evanescent and fleeting, elusive as thin air. The talents of my sons lie on a lower plane altogether; they can tell a good horse when they see one, but they cannot tell a superlative horse. I have a friend, however, one Chiu-fang Kao, a hawker of fuel and vegetables, who in things appertaining to horses is nowise my inferior. Pray see him." Duke Mu did so, and subsequently dispatched him on the quest for a steed. Three months later, he returned with the news that he had found one. "It is now in Shach'iu" he added. "What kind of a horse is it?" asked the Duke. "Oh, it is a dun-colored mare," was the reply. However, someone being sent to fetch it, the animal turned out to be a coal-black stallion! Much displeased, the Duke sent for Po Lo. "That friend of yours," he said, "whom I commissioned to look for a horse, has made a fine mess of it. Why, he cannot even distinguish a beast's color or sex! What on earth can he know about horses?" Po Lo heaved a sigh of satisfaction. "Has he really got as far as that?" he cried. "Ah, then he is worth ten thousand of me put together. There is no comparison between us. What Kao keeps in view is the spiritual mechanism. In making sure of the essential, he forgets the homely details; intent on the inward qualities, he loses sight of the external. He sees what he wants to see, and not what he does not want to see. He looks at the things he ought to look at, and neglects those that need not be looked at. So clever a judge of horses is Kao, that he has it in him to judge something better than horses." When the horse arrived, it turned out indeed to be a superlative animal."

My union with RavRav is a union which has dispensed with sight, with dialogue, and with the hope or expectation of physical possession as just such negligible inessentials. We persist in the state described by Eliot: "neither living nor dead, looking into the heart of light, the silence". The regular payment of 500 dollars a month persists, I surmise, by reason only of the fact that money represents the archetypal placeholder of total abstraction amidst the profane concreteness of everyday human experience (see Karl Marx, "Grundrisse").

>>61

Should spend it on black rentboys instead, get it outta your system.

>>59
tehehe. you are so angry on the internet. my gosh. get a grip. be nice. perhaps. just perhaps. I'm a little more intelligent than you.
:3

>>61
Pathetic old man confuses common prostitution--i.e. escort services--with a unique emotional connection.

Or that was an attempt at humor, but is anyone's "wit" that far out of touch?

would rav rav ever fuck a black guy like camel has/does?

>>65

Who can say?

>>1

I want this thread to die

>>64
It's a pity that you didn't just stick to the original line of your post here. Then, at least, it would have been perfectly clear that you just have no capacity to understand or even perceive humour and your readers could have just felt pity for you instead of annoyed contempt.

But no, you were worried that if you just left it at the point where it looked like you thought that a guy who said that a prostitute was asking him for money because she'd read Karl Marx's "Grundrisse" was being SERIOUS, then that might mean it was YOU who'd been "owned" in the end - so you just had to go on and pretend that you DO have the ability to attach some meaning to the term "wit".

Predictably, though, you immediately fuck THAT up as well and demonstrate after all, even more clearly, that you really are completely clueless as regards what it might mean to look on the world, and on oneself, with the gentle eye of irony and humour.

"Is anyone's 'wit' that far out of touch?" you ask. The answer to that question is: Yes. Just about EVERYONE who has given the world the gift of genuine wit and humour has done so by SHOWING to the world a personality who was "out of touch with reality". Not, of course, by actually BEING such a personality. If Oliver Hardy had REALLY BEEN a preening, self-regarding, officious, petty bully, and if Stan Laurel had REALLY BEEN a dim, intimidated, pliable lackey prone to bursting into fits of self-pitying tears they could never possibly have PORTRAYED these types so amusingly and enduringly on screen.

Humour, in other words, is essentially ABOUT self-delusion, ABOUT being "out of touch" - but it is also, of course, the act par excellence of self-delusion's overcoming, since one is never LESS deluded about something - i.e. about the fact that one IS being cynically exploited and that there IS no "emotional connection" between you and the person exploiting you - than when one exaggerates this situation - by making absurdly pompous references to Karl Marx and T.S: Eliot, for example - and invites people to laugh about it.

But you really can't understand any of this, can you? Your life is far too dominated by the terrible constant fear that was instilled in you by God knows what sort of miserable loveless childhood - the fear of being "owned", the fear of being made to look "weak" or "foolish" or "needy" - that it is simply inconceivable to you that ANYONE could EVER do what ALL real humourists have in fact ALWAYS done and WILLINGLY and OPENLY expose one's own vanities for people to share a smile with one over.

From my side, I have to admit, I can almost understand this total incomprehension of what is "other" to one in the sphere of humour and laughter. I can't - and really don't want to - imagine the process which triggers the reaction which passes for laughter in YOUR case. You see someone stronger physically or verbally humiliating someone weaker, I suppose, and a sort of mirthless, rhythmical chimpanzee screech issues from your jaws as a sign of relief and jubilation that the humiliation is being inflicted on someone else today and not on you.

That, I suppose, is what YOU would accept as "wit" and "humour", as it certainly fulfils your condition of not being "out of touch with reality".

It would be semantics to argue about which is the correct usage of the term, yours or mine. But it's clear, at least, that we just don't speak the same language.

>>68

>>69
(a) There is no "Sky Queen"

(b) If you're referring to the daughter of upper-middle-class, Oxford-educated parents whom you guys harassed and slavered over seven years ago when she was practically a child, she certainly has, at age twenty-two, no interest in the existence of this board or in anything posted on it. In the unlikely eventuality of her ever taking a look at it, though, I'm pretty sure - given her background - that she'd find more amusement in a well-written post analyzing the psychology of vain little Internet bullies than in all your mixture of pubescent macro-baiting and pseudo-religious posturing put together.

>>70

Swivel, old man

>>70
You can be quite the internet bully yourself.

>>68
Accusing someone of being wholly incapable of grasping humor when they point out that your own attempts in that domain always fall completely flat seems REALLY mature and objective.

Nothing you have ever posted has been even remotely funny, despite how highly you regard your ability for posting with a "gentle eye of irony and humour." Since that last statement will undoubtedly tempt you to offer a meandering, angry, desperate rebuttal composed of egotism but bereft of any meaningful content, I will say this: Spare me. Instead, since these boards move at a snail's pace and you've shat all over a huge amount of their threads, why don't you link to an instance where someone actually commended you for one of your jokes? Sure, you might claim that people don't always do as much when they read a post they found funny, but the facts that no one has, and that most of your "jokes" are actually derided for their tedium and pompousness, should tell you something.

People might be more likely to actually find humor in your posts if--aside from the tedium and pompousness--they made any sense in the context of how you behave. You claim to attempt to "expose [your] vanities for people to share a smile with one over," but you snarl and froth at the mouth like a rabid dog anytime someone makes an accurate criticism of you, since you believe you're the only person worthy of criticizing yourself. Your previous post is a perfect example: I pointed out that no one shares your sense of humor, and you responded with what was analogous to "No, you're the poopy head"--a furious toddler-tantrum over the fact that any of your intellectual inferiors would have the gall to say that you aren't funny. With this in mind, it should be pretty clear why people are often unsure if something you've written is actually meant to be funny, or if it's one of your tirades about your intellectual and moral superiority. I also sincerely doubt you'e ever shared a smile with anyone.

On a related note, I think everyone here can be spared a lecture on the nature of humor from someone who has never intentionally made someone else laugh.

Since you can't even imagine what would make me laugh, and since you apparently don't even speak the same language as me, I suggest you save your gentle eye for irony and humor for like-minded people, such as your friends. Oh wait...

>>70

>that she'd find more amusement in a well-written post analyzing the psychology of vain little Internet bullies

I don't think anyone would find much amusement in your psychology.

>>73

Let's be fair and give credit where it is due. Going through the archives, I actually noticed a post by Alex I agreed with.

It was from 2009...

Alex, go to that elephants' graveyard of a board known as Crackyhouse and die with it.

>>75
Well, I meant a post that succeeded in being funny. I imagine that's a lot harder to find.

>>75
Actually, why DON'T you people think about the implications of that fact? I mean the fact that Crackyhouse has finally pretty much upped and died - and it's not me that has made just this comment on and about CH over the past few days - just at the point where I gave up and STOPPED posting on it and generally trying to do something to make it less infantile and destructive.

As to your challenge to "post some links to posts of mine that people thought were funny", well, as we all know, one must be crazy to "try to prove anything on the Internet". No one has a memory that lasts more than thirty minutes, and even if they did and their memory told them they'd been proven wrong, they still wouldn't admit it, because why would they have to? It's the Internetz.

I seldom posted on here until recently, but I posted on CH for three years and, yes, there were a hundred instances when people expressed enjoyment of the humour and inventiveness of my posts. Several people have thanked me for them anonymously on the board and several more by name in private communications.

But I'm not going to bother to try to "document" all this because if you don't know it already, or are intent on pretending you don't know it, then your response can be predicted in advance: just more abuse and lies, claiming I'm same-fagging or whatever blah blah blah.

You can't argue ignorant people into recognizing knowledge or argue humourless people into recognizing humour.

You either see it or you don't.

You don't, and never will.

>>77

This is an imageboard, not your student rag from the days when you paid into the Alhambra with jam jars to see Laurel and Hardy. We can't see the Emperors' New Clothes. FOAD.

>>78
Actually, given that you people probably have no more to say about Cracky, really than it turned out the people at CH did (after three years of screaming at me: "Fuck off Alex Reynolds and stop posting tl;dr irrelevancies; we want to post stuff about Cracky"), these last few bullying image macros have given me an idea of something you MIGHT discuss here:

Why don't some of you - I can't be bothered myself - start a discussion of how Olivia - who, I have the vague impression, was quite a well-brought-up, interesting, sensitive, very English girl in her day - has been twisted, defiled and distorted by swaggering, poison-filled, American brats into a creature in their own image: "giving the finger" (a quintessentially American gesture) to her detractors and spewing forth a stream of highly Americanized vulgarity and obscenity that I would hope, at least, no upper-middle-class British girl would really QUITE sink to even at this advanced point in England's decline and dissolution.

>>79
If Cracky could read this crap you've spouted, she'd be holding your arms firmly behind your back while we all took turns stabbing you.

> England's decline and dissolution.

Ex-pat whining about how he appreciates his own culture and mourns decline of said English glory is sad. Sad as fuck.

her middle finger is so fucking well-manicured and long and cute and sweet

>>80
More material, I think, for the discussion I proposed above.

It's quite an interesting experiment in
psychology, actually.

It seems that a lot of people really DO distort the world around them to the point of totally recreating it in their own image.

If you ask a piece of trailer-trash from some shithole in West Virginia what a young, Oxford-educated Englishman would do with a thousand dollars, it would appear, in the light of this post, that he really WOULD give the answer "Buy a hundred cases of Budweiser and get FUCKED UP!" and not, for example, the much more plausible one of "Go to Italy and pay a visit to some of the galleries and churches in the Padova and Venezia region that he hasn't seen yet".

PLEASE, you sad little people, get your pseudo-religious fantasies about Olivia out of your head and apply a bit of elementary sociology.

Middlle-class girls raised in Oxford, Guernsey and Switzerland don't sit brooding in their rooms nurturing fantasies of stabbing people and slitting their throats. That's what scabby little pieces of American trailer-trash like YOU do.

If you so desperately need some reflecting surface for your own poisoned and hopeless mediocrity, why don't you choose some OTHER girl who indulged in a bit of "cam-whoring" in early adolescence, and not THIS one, who may just conceivably have had some CLASS?

>>77

> No one has a memory that lasts more than thirty minutes, and even if they did and their memory told them they'd been proven wrong, they still wouldn't admit it, because why would they have to? It's the Internetz.

How convenient of you to proclaim the futility of proving something when hard evidence is just clicks away. As usual, when backed into a corner you frantically try to deflect, distract, or discredit criticism, even though there are irrefutable records readily available to support or disclaim the statement.

"Herp derp, there were tons of times, but I'm not showing you."

That a few idiots have occasionally been awed by some of your directionless, pretentious, long-winded posts chock-full of irrelevant allusions without any original or admirable insight is no surprise. In fact, the employment of unnecessary verbosity and a slew of name-dropping references to things unrelated to the topic at hand has always been a tremendously popular way of impressing people who don't know any better. It's especially popular among people who study liberal arts. But even this knack for hand-waiving doesn't mean you possess any real wit, so I'd really love for you to show me and instance where someone actually found something you posted FUNNY. "Ooooo, you use pretty words and long sentences" is very different from actually getting someone to laugh.

>just more abuse and lies, claiming I'm same-fagging or whatever blah blah blah

By all means, tell me how I've lied. No one is going to accuse you of same-fagging, as your pompous and aggravating style of writing is truly one of a kind. And abuse? You're the king of condescension and put-downs, so you really have no right to complain to anyone about abuse.

You should also bear in mind that you have more than one detractor in this thread, as hard as it is for your ego to admit that. (My posts include >>76>>74>>73>>64>>49, and nothing else after 49) You might think that a small minority of people here are responsible for calling you out on all your egoistic filth, but in actuality you're almost universally hated. I imagine this is equally true off the internet.

>or argue humourless people into recognizing humour

Your pride is so immense that your response to people finding no humor in the trash you write is to think "well, they're just humorless idiots." If no one is laughing on a place as demographically diverse as an imageboard, that means it isn't funny. You really are incapable of admitting any shortcoming externally observed. Either mommy always said you were the greatest, or this megalomania of yours is a defense mechanism developed due to the opposite treatment. Leave these boards, see a shrink, or just kill yourself. You're too old to be hated wherever you stay for long to have any hope of things ever getting better.

>>83

I hail from the wastelands of the north, not West Virginia. What, with all your comments about class, culture, etc, I must reiterate what I divulged previously: I have a good library and education too, and am fond of what you refer to as culture, but, unlike you, I am not a snob who feels the need to blow his own trumpet 24/7. If you weren't such a sad, annoying wankstain then people like me (and I can't be the only one) might stop thinking 'wouldn't it be great if someone chinned that mouthy bastard IRL'?

Fuck you, Alex, you little bitch. I'm not a fucking student of yours (I like my anal integrity intact, ha ha), and you ain't in Kansas anymore so STFU.

>>79
How 'bout you save us your shallow bigotry that you cling to desperately for lack of anything of value to show for your years on this earth? Well, other than paying girls less than half your age in hopes that SOMEONE will have an ounce of affection for you.

>If you so desperately need some reflecting surface for your own poisoned and hopeless mediocrity, why don't you choose some OTHER girl who indulged in a bit of "cam-whoring" in early adolescence, and not THIS one, who may just conceivably have had some CLASS?

Mediocrity? What, exactly, at your very advanced age, have you produced of even the slightest worth? Oh, and as for finding some other girl, do you mean like the ones with little enough dignity that they actually take money from you?

>>86

Don't judge me solely on my masterfully manufactured macros. IRL, I do not just have friends, I have FANS,and FOLLOWERS. That's all I'm for saying, though.

>>84
As I say, you and I both know that there is no such thing as "hard evidence" on the Internet.

You've already primed and anticipated the response you would make to any links that I might post with your remark about it's being "no surprise that a few idiots have occasionally been awed....etc"

If I posted links, it'd be like the "What have the Romans done for us?" bit in "Life of Brian":

"Oh yeah, THAT time, well we all know HE was an idiot, but APART from that...."

"Oh God, you're not going to quote HER...Well, we all know about HER, but APART from her..."

And so on and so on until we have twenty-five links, all to posts by "twenty-five idiots" who have all, "no surprise", been overawed by my unoriginal etc. etc. etc.

Forget it. I'm not going to waste my time.

>>89
A link for those of you too young to remember Monty Python.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

Sorry about the irrelevant allusion and unoriginal insight

>>89
There are records going back for years on CH. What exactly would constitute harder evidence than that, to your abjectly stupid mind?

What I said about people being impressed with your hand-waiving was in regards to people thinking anything you've written is actually INTERESTING or INSIGHTFUL, which is why I said I'd like to see posts where people actually accuse you of being FUNNY. I have no intention of dismissing anyone saying your posts are funny because they're idiots, since these boards are anonymous, after all. Even idiots can have a sense of humor; my point was that despite this, you don't. But sure, pretend like you don't understand that thrice repeated explanation, and run away like the lying fucking coward that you are. Just don't come back.

>>91
Exactly. Look at CH, then.

I really have no idea what has happened to all those old threads. A few of them have doubtless been destroyed or disabled in some way by people carrying out vicious vendettas against me in the past: bumping them from years back and adding reams and reams of "Alex is a fucking pedo child-molestor who is a danger to children" or something, so I got disgusted and deleted them myself.

But I'm sure that there are dozens of positive comments surviving on my self-mocking posts about RavRav, or about the absurdities of the whole "Lia" flamewar that blew up before Jeff created Room 101, or on a hundred other topics.

Who has eyes to see, let him see.

Who doesn't...well, why bother?

>>92
No one has ever found you funny. Either admit it (or at the very least shut the fuck up about it), or provide some evidence to the contrary, as there are abundant records available that would support your claim if it were true.

But instead, you continue subjecting us to all your little lies and excuses because your childish little ego cannot admit the fault of being unfunny, as that would mean you're not as witty and socially aware as you think you are. Believe me, you wildly overestimate yourself on a LOT of counts. Instead of using the internet to boost your unwarranted self-esteem, apparently in part through memory errors, why don't you instead grow up, you delusional man-child?

>>93
OK. I'm not funny. Have big-character posters made up and post them on every street-corner. Publish my admission of guilt in "The Times".

Now let's end this thread, please.

I can see there is some sort of genuine inter-pedophile feud going on on the board at the same time as our harmless verbal sparring and I always get a kind of vague sick feeling in my stomach when I notice what sort of people I'm probably rubbing elbows with when I amuse myself by exchanging ripostes with people here and on CH.

CH is over. And, yes, in the course of about 200 posts here I have seen no positive or friendly response at all to my attempts to relieve my loneliness.

So, particularly in view of the (hopefully marginal) presence here of some genuine creeps and perverts, I think I'd better take your advice...or something like it....and just give this up. Bye.

>>95
hah

>>95
Fuck, that was quick.

Can Chris Hansen and the Bow Street Runners be far behind?

I'm outta here.

>>96
Though I WILL say, as a parting shot, that this is a VERY good example of what I meant above by a "mirthless rhythmical chimpanzee screech".

>>98
Of course. You're the only one who deserves adulation. If anyone else if found to be funny, it's because the reader is stupid.

You are a lonely old man who is hated by anyone who knows him in more than just passing. You spend your days constantly praising yourself and insulting everyone else. Stop posting here and kill yourself.

If ever Alex has ever posted something worthwhile in CH or in here, it has been eclipsed by the endless tonnage of worthless posts to retaliate every instance where he "felt" attacked, rightly or wrongly.

Whatever the worth, the nuisance is greater.

Alex, you'd be a fool to think that any of your posts could ever be well received after all the bile ant contempt you have thrown at every body here.

You're an asshole, but you're not a fool.

Every one of your post is either the start of a flamewar or the continuation of one, especially the ones you falsely and unsuccessfully claim are innocent humor.

There is nothing but flamewars for you here, and this is why you cant stop posting, because it's exactly what you wanted all along.

Everyone knows this because, while you still pretend to the contrary, we've all seen the pattern too many time to loose sight of it: you are not amusing yourself and others by trading friendly witty repartees, you are here to amuse yourself and yourself only at the expense of people you only feel contempt for.

>>1

I am really enjoying the dischord i have created here

>>101

I think you left this...

captcha = 'lo'

>>102

drama

>>2
YES WHO TOOK ALL THE PHOTOS OF CRACKY IN HER ROOM???

I nearly pissed myself
thank you>

>>104

omfg... dried menses in her face again?

vericode: gep

According the Encyclopedia Dramatica, the only person who has sucked more fat black cock than Camel is Alex.